From pycyn@aol.com Fri Nov 02 13:53:13 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 2 Nov 2001 21:53:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 78370 invoked from network); 2 Nov 2001 21:53:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Nov 2001 21:53:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r02.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.98) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Nov 2001 21:53:12 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.b4.1132d2b (3925) for ; Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:53:09 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2001 16:53:08 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] lo with discourse-scope? To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_b4.1132d2b.29146fc4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11893 --part1_b4.1132d2b.29146fc4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2001 11:36:03 AM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes: > Uhhh, doesn't da keep its binding until changed? > > That's certainly how I use it. > Once more (with feeling): Officially, the scope of {da} (its binding) runs out at the next unadorned {i} or similar break marker or at {da'o}, whichever comes first. Informally, we allow it to continue for some indefinite period even after {i} (I'm less sure about the others, but {da'o} definitely kills it). The indefintie period is apparently as long as we keep in mind what {da} stood for. A typical joke would surely be short enough, but maybe not a reasonable novel -- and almost surely not a multigenerational saga. --part1_b4.1132d2b.29146fc4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/2/2001 11:36:03 AM Central Standard Time, rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org writes:


Uhhh, doesn't da keep its binding until changed?

That's certainly how I use it.


Once more (with feeling): Officially, the scope of {da} (its binding) runs out at the next unadorned {i} or similar break marker or at {da'o}, whichever comes first.  Informally, we allow it to continue for some indefinite period even after {i} (I'm less sure about the others, but {da'o} definitely kills it). The indefintie period is apparently as long as we keep in mind what {da} stood for.  A typical joke would surely be short enough, but maybe not a reasonable novel -- and almost surely not a multigenerational saga. --part1_b4.1132d2b.29146fc4_boundary--